[Flyboy]

The full Sky HD package; sports, movies, and Sky World is fifty-seven pounds per month and it includes upto 2mbps broadband (yes, only upto 2mbps BB). On the face of it it may sound better value for money, But, when you consider the bundle packages; telephone, BB and TV, you really can't beat VM. Yes they may not have all the HD channels yet (for which I am just as disappointed as the next man), but you have to take into account all the other services that come with V+, e.g., VOD and you certainly can't fault the 20mbps and 50mbps BB speeds either. I was with Sky up until just under a year ago, their BB was nowhere near 2mbps (I was lucky to get 0.4mbps) and I had to pay for maintenance for the boxes, cables and dish. BT were screwing every last penny they could from me and I just snapped and told them all to beggar off. Yes, there have been a few niggles with VM, for example, their call centre in India is pants, but then that is ALL customer service departments for you and certainly no better than Sky's. There are some difference in functionality in the two boxes, the V+ box won't record from the buffer, but Sky's box has only two tuners whereas V+ has three, V+ will store programming in the buffer, whilst you are watching a recorded programme, Sky's EPG is easier to navigate, V+'s EPG has picture-in-picture. But over all, I do think that V+ is better value for money and has more benefits than Sky, even though they don't have as much HD linear output and you can't record from the buffer.